4 ms·

While I'm not familiar with UK law, in US law that would be open and shut if the reason he refused them the room was specifically because they were gay. It woul

While I'm not familiar with UK law, in US law that would be open and shut if the reason he refused them the room was specifically because they were gay. It would be similar to if this baker refused to sell the couple anything because of their sexuality, which is not the case. He immediately offered to sell them anything already in the shop or to even create custom goodies for showers/birthdays/etc. But he would not create a product to endorse a view he found offensive. And that's the major issue. Under freedom of speech you cannot be compelled by the state to endorse things you find distasteful, and cake creation is reasonably qualified as an expression of speech. By contrast, I do not think one could argue that giving somebody the keys to a room is any sort of expression.

amaccuish 8y ago
I feel like people shouldn't get to decide what is distasteful or not. Bakers should be able to reject making a cake with swear words, sexual imagery and hate speech, and that's about it. Everything else you make, unless of course you don't have the resources/staff/time etc. But on the basis of the message on the cake, if it isn't hateful, bake it. This is clearly without regard to American law, I'm sure it conflicts, but that's where my views lie on this :)
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Have you considered the implications of when people can force others to perform services, involving expressions of speech, against their will? You could go into an Islamic cake shop and demand they draw an image of 'happy Mohammed' on a cake for you. You could demand Bob's Marketing Company create and execute a campaign stating that Bob's Marketing Company is the worst. And so on. That's just at the high level if you can actually get the law to function. Which is itself a huge question. That's where you get into questions like what is sexual imagery? What is hate speech? Who defines that? For instance back in the more puritanical times of the US, which really was not all that long ago, there were numerous laws against indecent material. And again the problem regularly faced is how do you define it? Consider all the content that would be naturally ambiguous. Consider other content that intentionally slides in or out of the restrictions for whatever end. Not so easy!

amaccuish 8y ago

I feel like people shouldn't get to decide what is distasteful or not. Bakers should be able to reject making a cake with swear words, sexual imagery and hate speech, and that's about it. Everything else you make, unless of course you don't have the resources/staff/time etc. But on the basis of the message on the cake, if it isn't hateful, bake it. This is clearly without regard to American law, I'm sure it conflicts, but that's where my views lie on this :)

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Have you considered the implications of when people can force others to perform services, involving expressions of speech, against their will? You could go into an Islamic cake shop and demand they draw an image of 'happy Mohammed' on a cake for you. You could demand Bob's Marketing Company create and execute a campaign stating that Bob's Marketing Company is the worst. And so on. That's just at the high level if you can actually get the law to function. Which is itself a huge question. That's where you get into questions like what is sexual imagery? What is hate speech? Who defines that? For instance back in the more puritanical times of the US, which really was not all that long ago, there were numerous laws against indecent material. And again the problem regularly faced is how do you define it? Consider all the content that would be naturally ambiguous. Consider other content that intentionally slides in or out of the restrictions for whatever end. Not so easy!